Follow PR Daily on:

When is it better to take the loss rather than respond?

Sometimes, your messaging must compete with a vocal, effective and often
sympathetic opponent.

Let's say the opponent is a “David”—a small group perceived to be fighting for a fair
cause—while the organization is perceived, fairly or not, to be the
unfeeling “Goliath.”

When Goliath receives media inquiries, it replies with a written statement.
It has calculated that the risks of combating their opponent through an
unpredictable on-camera interview are too high and that a misstatement
would only give detractors more fodder for their criticism.

The problem is that the little-guy opponent, the David, accepts
on-camera interviews, which creates a stark contrast between the two
parties.

News stories have a video clip from David’s on-camera interview, which is
then butted up against the anchor or correspondent having to read—in voice
over—Goliath’s statement from an on-screen graphic. It’s easy to imagine
viewers concluding that David is as open and reasonable as Goliath is cold
and distant.

By refusing to appear on camera, Goliath is taking a five-yard loss in
every interview. Yet, are there times when a five-yard loss is an
acceptable outcome?

The image above represents how the written-statement approach leads to a
loss of yardage every time the ball is snapped, but it also shows how the
potential loss is contained. To extend the metaphor, Goliath isn’t getting
sacked and losing 30 yards on each play—just a few yards each time. Sure,
Goliath may never actually move the ball forward—but if risk tolerance is
low, a small loss may be acceptable.

Instead, let’s say Goliath decided to appear on camera when interview
requests came in. The playing field might look more like this:

Suddenly, the potential loss is much greater. An unfortunate gaffe will be
used relentlessly by an opponent to weaken you. Beyond that, you are
walking into a media environment in which the little guy is often granted
more sympathy automatically.

However, there’s also the chance to make a meaningful gain.

In investing terms, one might put it this way:

Option one is like investing in your bank’s savings account.
You’ll make a few dollars in interest, but they won’t be enough to keep
up with inflation, meaning you’ll ultimately lose money—but only a
little.

Option two is more like stock investing.
The potential gains are tempting and possibly great, but the downside
is too real to be ignored.

How to choose your response

Are there times when a “five-yard loss” is a more acceptable outcome?

Here are a few reasons why a written statement might be appropriate:

Despite your public perception being diminished with a series of
five-yard losses, you calculate that you’re still more likely to
accomplish your goals by reducing your risks rather than by magnifying
them.

Your spokespeople aren’t as empathetic, credible or dependable as
they’d need to be to provide a useful counterbalance your opponent.

The investment of time in redeploying personnel to prepare for and
respond to media requests would take them away from higher-value tasks.
(Possible solutions: Accept only the highest-priority interviews
and/or expand the pool of potential spokespersons.)

While there could be a time where a written statement remains the best
approach, consider this:

Challenge yourself to ask whether your tendency to respond in writing
is due primarily to deliberate strategy or to a combination of habit,
fear and laziness.

Remember the
power of cognitive dissonance. One of the best ways to neutralize a more sympathetic opponent is to
show the audience that you, too, are as warm, reasonable, thoughtful
and relatable as your opponent. Those traits can help shift an
audience’s thinking in ways that written statements never could.

How would you square off with a sympathetic opponent, PR Daily
readers?